We have products that end up being color or finish specific base on the order. There are piece parts that are used again within our assemblies. We’ve already decoupled the color from the method and are implementing a way to cross reference colors specified on the order so that the paint department can know what color a part should be painted.
The next problem that I would like to solve would be for when parts need to be finished by some outside service, like galvanizing. Galvanizing is functionally just a different finish, but we don’t have the capabilities to do it here, so it needs a subcontract operation instead of paint.
For most parts, I just force the engineers to make another part number for that part, (since it’s a different process so it’s a different part… They do it, but don’t like it, and I get why). It’s easy to miss things though when the machine is a save as of a previously painted model, so it’s hard to switch out all of the parts.
This seems like something that alternate methods would be good for, but I haven’t been able to figure out how to control that well enough with a few hundred assembly sequences being brought in at once on the job.
Brandon,
Are you using the Configurator? A couple of rules to ‘keep’ the appropriate operations (in house or subcontract) might be an answer… Paint colors could be part of a description/note field on the operation (or job traveler). We use the configurator rules to manipulate quite a bit of information for the jobs.
We haven’t tried alternate methods but we have one material part# that a subcontractor makes for us to use in final assembly. We’re planning on changing our process to utilize the configurator rules and/or turn it into a subassembly with one subcontract operation so scheduling will do it’s thing correctly.
no everything is custom engineered, so we don’t even have a full BOM until the job about ready to be released to the production floor. I’m just trying to work out the piece parts that get reused from job to job.
We have a process to print out the packets with the prints that puts stamps on them. We pull the info from a BAQ so we are using a cross reference via calculated fields to stamp them correctly when they are printed out.
It’s the different op type that’s messing us up. If it was simple a different in house op, I could probably make a process post get details that would change the op, but it has to change to a subcon op, so you can’t just change it, you have to delete and re-add it.
We need to chrome plate some of the products we make, and we handle this in the method. We have a subcontract operation on the routing. The system creates a purchase suggestion for the chrome plating, which is linked to the Job, we ship it to the plater using a miscellaneous shipper, and when we receive it back in, we reference the open Job number. When the Job is completed, it goes to stock with the subcontract costs included.
We do have different part numbers for chromed vs. non-chromed parts, and our engineers are numb to it by now!
We are just starting to use it, which is why this is coming up again. We (according to me anyways) need better tracking and control of what’s going out and when it comes back. So now that I am requiring using the subcon shipping, the job ops have to be correct. Before they would just fudge some things if it wasn’t right.
So I’m just wondering if anyone has come up with a way to not have to make independent part number.
Have you got an real practical solution for it? I am also in same situation that we have to send some part out for similar process. We don’t want to create a another part code (or part codes) for it ,but not finding real solution which will take care item Traceability of part & capturing real cost at any stage of process .
Let me know if you have some solution for it.
Thanks.
We are still on the separate part number solution. I haven’t thought about this for a while so I guess it working . And actually thinking about it, the parts would have a significant cost difference so it makes sense to have a separate history. I still wish it was easier to switch out though on jobs.
I have to think about this as it will help to solve one universal problem. what happen if some company is making a product which has 1 common part but it has# 50 different color shade model, is it wise to create 50 different part code for it?. when cost difference is huge it make sense but if the cost difference is marginal then??
If we could ever make the same thing twice that would be nice. Engineer to order has too many “it depends”, I have no idea how we could handle all of the possible scenarios. It get complicated real quick.
Right Charlie.
How to manage in inventory in such cases ? You store single part code with various color , how do store picker know which one (Which color) to pick against?
When you create revision which has changed its Fit/form/function by definition you need to create new part code don,t you?
When talking inventory, Revision (or alternate) does not come into consideration. If you are planning on stocking a material with variations and the variations matter (I don’t know why they wouldn’t), you would need to have separate part
numbers. Something like 123456-BK, 123456-RD and 123456-GR. Because the parts may be interchangeable but a color, size, shape is the characteristic and you are planning on inventorying them, you definitely need separate part numbers.
If however, you are ETO or MTO, that would not be the case because you are not inventorying them. After manufacture, they are going straight out the door. This is where the alternate can be helpful. One part with multiple variations not
stocked.
. And actually thinking about it, the parts would have a significant cost difference so it makes sense to have a separate history. I still wish it was easier to switch out though on jobs.